
/f63 



f 



'5 



TRS OOirSORIPTI^N Bllili. 



. !i) 



' I ov 




SPEBCHi^,, ZJ-^.^l 



' HON. S. S. COX, OF OHid! 

DKLIVEEED IN THE HO USE OP BEPEE8ENTATIVE8, PEBEUAEY 28, 1868. O '* 

Tfite House having under consideration the bill to call out the national forces, Mr. OOX 
satd: 

Mr. Speaker. I am obliged to the Chair for the prompt manner in which he has 
protected my right to the floor, and for the emphasis with which he brought 
down the gavel for that purpose [Laughter.] I hope now that I shall not 
be further mterrupted. 

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat amused and instructed by what fell from my 
reverend brother [Mr. Fkssenden] from Maine, who has just taken his seat. It 
was proper that he should defend his clerical brethren. But after the high 
wrought eulogy which he uttered in their behalf, I was surprised at the lame 
conclusion to which he arrived. How could he as a patriot argue that so val- 
uable a class of citizens should be excluded from serving their country in the 
army ? If they are as worthy and as patriotic as he believes, will they seek 
exemption? The very argument of the gentleman, combining with other 
reasons which I may give but from which he will doubtless dissent, compel me 
to oppose the exemption of the clergy from this sweeping couscription. 

There are some clergymen for whom I have an unbounded reverence and 
respect — men who preach the gospel of "peace on earth and good will to - 
men." They do not turn the living word into reproach by "vain disput«k- 
tiona." They do not create jar and conflict on earth and ill will to men. 
From the first settlement of the region from which the gentleman comes down, 
to the present time, the largest part of the clergy seem to have been specially 
commissioned, in their own opinion, to read lectures upon political matters to 
the people of this country and to ail mankind. They have descended from 
their spiritual elevation to grope amid the passions and corruptions of parti- 
zan strife. They have thus, divided the churches and degraded the mission 
left them by their loving Master. 

Mr. S. C. FESSENDEN rose. 

Mr. VOORHEES. I object to interruption. 

Mr. COX. I will yield to the gentleman if he wants to say somethinir. Does 
he want to ask me a question ? jo 

Mr. S. C. FESSENDEN. I challenge the gentleman to produce the proof of 
that assertion- *^ 

Mr. COX. I refer the gentleman for the proof, to New England history from 
the days of Cotton Mather and the burning of witches, down to the present 
unhappy time. Why, sir, let the dominant clergy of New Eogland continue 
to have way now as they had it once when Catholics, Episcopalians Baptists 
and Quakers were persecuted, punished, exiled and murdered for conscience 
Bake, and the gentleman will live to witness, perhaps with transport Episco- 
palian and Cathohc clergymen garoted and burned in the streets of Boston 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. S. C. FESSENDEN. Will the gentleman allow me now t 



.c/^n^ 



Mr. COX I have no objection if the gentleman wants to ask a qnestloa. 
Objected to by a member from the Republican side of the House. 

Mr. COX. That objection does not come from this side. 

Mr. Speaker, there is a certain class of preachers to -whom gentlemen on 
this side of the House are under no special obligations. They have prayed 
U8 frequently into the nethermost abysses. [Laughter.] 

And why ? Because we belonged to that old Democratic party which baa 
been coeval with this Government — which has never, as an organization, been 
unfaithful to the interests and honor of the whole country, and which has 
never lost its chivah ic respect for the safeguards and immunities of the Union 
aed Consti<^"tion. Simply to have affiliations with that party bos always been 
suffident to bring down the anathemas, by "bell, bo('k and candle," of tho* 
clergymen who now through the ministerial member from Maine, seek exemp- 
tion from the inconvenient consequences of the troubles which they have 
themselves been mainly instrumental in bringing upon our beloved land. 
Long before the radical politicians, north and south, began to rend the nation 
in their hate, these preachers had riven the churches in their crazed and 
demoniac fury. 1 ask you men of the South yet remaining with us, as I ask 
you Northern Representatives — is any one more responsible for the present un- 
nappy condition of the country than these firebrands of the sanctuary — north 
and south ? Have not the fiercest zealots of secession and abolition been 
found among those who have kindled on God's altar, the unhallowed embers 
of sectional asperity? 

The gentleman from Maine wants proof. Why, sir, it is easy enough to 
furnish it. Go back to the three thousand clergymen of Kew England, who, 
in the name of the Most High, felt themselves accredited to send to the Con- 
gress of the United States, a special denunciation of Stephen A. Douglas for 
hie championship of the rights of the people of the Territories. Their anti- 
elavery evangel was met by, him with the same defiance which the Democ- 
racy displayed in the days of Jefi'erson, when the Kew England clergy re- 
viled that apostle of our political faith. The impertinent and improper inter- 
ference by a portion of the clergy in the politics of the country, is not pecu- 
liar to our day, though never before has it been so conspicuous as in foment- 
ing the troubles which have culminated in this calamitous war. 

There are two kinds of clergymen in this country-. I have before me a 
description of one class with which I have no doubt gentlemen on the other 
side are more familiar than with those who minister in the church in which 
I happen to worship. [Laughter.] I will recite the description : 

"A minister, whom hell had sent, 
To spread its blast where'er he went, 
And fling, as o'er our earth he trod, 
Hii shadow, betwixt man and God." 

Now, sir, all ministers who come within that definition I want to see enroll- 
ed in the Army and marched to its front There let them do their duty, and 
Bee whether they cannot help to put down this rebellion which they have been eo 
long instigatirig. Let them suffer some of the consequences that our brothers 
undergo in ihe Southwest and along the Rappahannock. ] would not have 
them go merely as clerks, letter writers, or chaplains. Let them shoulder the 
twelve pound musket, do picket duty, and trudge like our brave boys anaid 
winter snows, spring mud and summer suns, under th« packed knapsack, and 
my word for it, they will come back sanctified by grace. [Laughter.] 

After the eulogy pronounced upon the clergy by the gentleman from Main«, 
may we not presume that they would be in a better condition for the sacrifice, 
than many an unsanctified Democrat? Would they not ascend into the realms 
of glory with less inconvenience or delay? [Laughter.] Very many of them, 
from my observation would not be as much loss to the country as my clerical 
friend over the way would suppose. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I would not have addressed the gentleman from Maine in 
this style, had it not been that he wrung into his speech over and over again, 
what has been wrung into the speeches of other gentlemen on that side of tb« 
House since this debate began, as well as into newspapers and stump speeches, 



3 

the usual quantity of malignant talk about " Copperheads " and the disloyal 
Democracy. 

Arery beautiful mode of argumentation this! It is calculated to produce a 
very pleasing impression on this side of the House 1 The debate on this mea- 
sdPB from its opening has been characterized by this tender affability of man- 
ner! One would have supposed it would have been wise to have made the 
effort to conciliate this side of the House in favor of this measure; but you 
Bought to conciliate nobody. War Democrats — peaee Democrats — to use your 
inapposite language, are all alike. My eloquent friend from New York who 
has spoken so well for the Governor of his State, and the rights of his State, 
sod who expressed his willingness to sustain through the States, your calls for 
aid, — he is no exception, [Mr. Steele.] You sought not to conciliate my friend 
from Indiana [Mr. Holman,] who has been laboring for thejast two hours at 
my side, to make this bill, if possible, less objectionable by a substitute — he too 
has the fang and poison of the Copperhead. Yon sought not to cono liate any 
class of opinion, however loyal and conscientious. Youjwere unwilling when 
this bill came in first, to allow it to be scrutinized? You sought to force it 
through without amendments, without discussion ; and but for the determined 
nerve of this side of the Chamber, you would have accomplished your purpose 
and passed the bill with all of its infernal enginery of oppression. Gentlemen, 
you did not know us. We Were determined in the first place to have discus- 
sion; and in the second place to get the bill back into a position where it could 
be amended, and as many of its obnoxious features removed as it was possible 
tO; remove in this Congress. What we resolved to do that we have accomplish- 
ed. Before I come to the discussion of the bill itself, I owe it to the people of 
my district to repel the charges made by you upon their representative. 

The three Republicans who have last spoken [Messrs. Dunn, Stevens, and Fes- 
se^en] have charged that we are disloyal to the country, to the country we love 
as well — I will not say better than you — to that country which we love only less 
than we should love our Heavenly Father. From the beginning of the debate 
we have heard nothing but contemptuous scorn and contumely hurled against 
this, side of the House. Do you believe that members of this House, though 
iff.a minority, who are your equals here, will silently permit such language to 
gp>unlashed? If we were dishonored at home, do you think we are craven 
aaaugh to receive such epithets without giving scorn for scorn ? But being in 
fact the majoi-ity, having received the approbation of our constituents at home, 
da you imagine that we will sit here in timid crouching and receive your con- 
tumely without making some fit reply ? Do yon expect that we will, under the 
forms of courtesy, mouth honied words for your abuse? Do you imagine we 
cannot tell denunciation from debate? You forget that we come fresh from the 
people, covered all over with their generous approbation. My eloquent friend 
from Indiana [Mr. Voorhees] told you last night that you were but corpses 
^talking against public decency, for a short time only, before the public gaze. 
[Laughter.] A nice party, indeed, this company of corpses, to talk to us, the 
Kfipresentatives of the people I [Laughter.] 

The gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Dunn,] conscious of his defunct condition, 
talked to us, as he confessed, from the confines of his sepulchre. 

" Hark, from tlie tombs, a dolefal sonnd, 
Mine ears attend the cry." [Great laaghter.] 

If yon gentlemen who play the political phantom wish to carry out the 
proper definition of a ghost, cease to squeak and gibber your abolitionism and 
go back into your cerements, for daylight, thank Godl has begun to dawn. 
[Laughter.] Do you suppose that we, who are fresh from the people, have 
ajiy reason to distract our minds at what you utter against us? Do you sup- 
pose, for instance, that we who represent Ohio, where we had nineteen mem- 
oers of Congress to elect, and, under an infamous gerrymander which allowed 
U^ only two democrats, and who will come back to the next Congress fourteen 
tQ your five, are to be lectured by you for disloyalty ? Do you take us to be as 
contemptible as yourselves? You ghosts of the dead past mistake the temper 
o< our constituents as you have mistaken us. We know our rights under the 
Ocwm^tution, We have a sound record, to which we can forever point; for 



•we have stood by the country when you failed it We have, tinder the ine- 
ladicable love of law and order, stood by your own Administration when you 
have stigmatized and denounced it. We did our best in Congress before 
this, to settle these troubles, when adjustment was easy. We labored, with 
aaxious care, that peace might continue in the land. The people believe tbl^t 
you were recreant then ; that you are responsible for the failure to settle thes« 
difficulties by compromise. You know that the people so believe, for that w^s 
a part of their decision at the recent elections. 

If you still entertain any doubt about your recreancy and responsibility, 
read this letter, recently produced in the Illinois legislature by Hon. Mr. Eay«i, 
from Judge Douglas, dated the 29th of December, 1860. In it he says : 

" 7%6 South icouUT take 7ny proposition if the Republicans would agree to it. But the 
extremcB, North and South, hold off, and are precipitating the country into revolution and 
•Wl war. 

" "While I can do no act which recognises or countenances the doctrine of secession, iny 
policy is peace, and I will not consider the question of war until every effort has been made 
for peace, and all hope shall have vanished. When that time comes, if uufortimalely it sliall 
come, I will then do what it becomes an American Senator to do on the then state of fect^ 
Many of the HepuhHcan leaders deaire a dissolution of the Union, and urge irnr aa a 
means of acctmiplishiug disunio^i ; while others are Union men in good faith. We havp 
now reached the point where a compromise, on the basis of mutual concession, or disunion 
and war are inevitable. I prefer a fair and just compromise." 

If you still doubt, read again another letter from the same honest and nobis 
man, with which the country is familiar, in which he attributed the defeat of all 
amicable adjustments to the partizan desire of the Republican Senators, to 
confirm certain appointments by the (then) incoming Administration. Tlw 
Republican Senators wished to have a majority in the Senate for this ptu- 
pose. But for this petty political object, Judge Douglas thought that they 
would have passed some compromise. They wanted the seceded States to go 
out — they wanted the Southern Senators to leave the Senate. Becaue*, 
without their absence the Senate would never have approved of such 
abolition apf ointments as Cassius M. Clay as Minister to Petersburg ; which 
I believe he yet holds in connection with Simon Cameron, and a majo»- 

feneralship in the army, Paughter,] and which offices he is filling to the 
resident's contentment, by philandering around Willards' Hotel m theSa 
several capacities, [laughter,] if indeed he has any capacity. [Langhter.J 
The Republican Senators knew that the President might send in the nomir 
nation of such a man as Carl Schurz, as Minister to Spain, a German abolition 
infidel, who brought to this country the belief that license was liberty, and 
that Almighty God was a figment of the brain — some strange abstract en- 
tity, with the concrete attribute of drinking lager beer in the regions above the 
sun. [Great laughter.] They wanted to confirm another class of abolitionists 
like the inveterate abolitionist who used to represent the Ashtabula district of 
Ohio in this House. I mean the Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, now Consul Gen- 
eral to the Canadas. They wanted to confirm Helper, the authorof the Helper 
Book endoi'sed bj' the Republican members of Congress, and which urged rob- 
bery, murder, and insurrection, in order, by violence, to rid the country of 
slavery. J might enlarge the catalogue of abolitionists until the House wer« 
surfeited. Hence it was that Judge Douglas declared that the Republicana 
were responsible for not making an amicable adjustment of our troubles. In 
his opinion, they were willinc: to welcome civil war, and all its attendant hor- 
rors, from a mere greed for office, and to reward the anarchs and destruction- 
ists of the land. Hence it is that, before God and the country, I hold you, on 
the testimony of Douglas, responsible for the failure to settle these difficulties. 
But after all had failed through Republican partisanship and greed for offio«, 
we came to the extra session of Congress. You will remember that, with Douglas, 
we doubted if ever war could reclaim the Sotithern States. We thought then, 
that war alone would widen the abyss. We plead — jou know how even so 
humble a member as myself plead — against the arbitrament of the sword, for 
the settlement of these feuds of the sections. But we plead in vain. Douglas 
told you war was disunion. But war came! It is unnecessary for me to say 
who struck the first blow. It is idle now to argue \iho provoked the blow thai 
waa first struck. You know it all. We came to the exti'a session of 1861. 



tie roH, n^ ' f 'l^'M^'^y^^' 'aw-abiding. We vrere billing to do oitr all for 
5r!m„ f K, '!5\ ^.^^^"^^ "^^ted as the coadjutors of forob. But the "re at 
dramaof blood having been begun, not by our aid or comfort we acted on 

8oVeIp\?God?""""'°'^^"^^"^' ^-l^'-d'y- We co-H not do'othertise! 
The record of that session will show how w»> «nnnf^..fo^ fu» ka ^- • i. i.- 

ob;gT[;r„rha^rt;r„^uy'a?raSaL^^^ ^ «>«- constitutional 

numbr& J^l\^S'm5r"bTne^^^^^^^^^^ '"^^ any a„,ouat of a.oney and any 

rebellion, and the permanent resSoVof the Ped^^^^^^ °f '^'^ 

its and jurisdiction of the United States " ^«^'"^*' authority everywhere within the lim- 

I find nearly every member of this' House, upon this side votin<r for thaf 
resolution There were but five votes against It ; and of those thref of them 
are now absent and openly disloyal to the Government Did you want any 
thing more^anything better than that? You sought harmony amC ZuLndl 
at that time AH the men and all the money thai was wanted waslrantedhv 

him fiv'^h ^""; fu'^'^Z' "l"^^^ ^^'- ''^' ^^'^'^'^^ tho.mnd men afd ^elav^ 
him five hundred thousand ; he asked for four hundred millions of dolirrs^and 
we gave h.m five hundred millions. Whenever he came here asking men and 
money, we ^a.ve them to him. Could we do more? Wfl,.l\^I ^ u j 
for that? Were we disloyal men forVrt^'^W^tlollo^; dN^k^tfy^a^fTer^ 
^s^ards the venerable member from Kentucky FMr. CrittevdknI off^ZTL.l 
lution as to the purposes of the war. All o^ L oiZTulTlopToi t w a" 

used, and that this war should be carried on for the one great purpose of ^e 
storing the federal authority everywhere, and not for the interference ^ith or 
destruction of the institutions of any State-meaning slav;y--ard thai when 
the object of federal supremacy was accomplished the war should stoo We 
gave It our adhesion as the direction which we were to follow in the Ppursdt 
of this war against this rebellion. vw m one pursuit 

What more could we do and be faithful? Gould we have done less? W« 
were only pursuing what we had declared before in our speeches here iTe 
member a scene which was recalled to my mind bv some remlr^rfZllu 
t^man from Indiana [Mr. Da...] I wis "me^br:f"thiT Con^es^X" 
State after State sent here their ordinances of secession. I recall the firs? 
motion that was made by a member from Florida. [Mr. HawkS who sat S 
that seat occupied by my friend from Maryland, [Mr. Cresfield ui Te excteS 
from service upon a committee raised to compromise these troubles. He gave 
us as a reason that his State was already resolved to secede. I then sa'd thit 
I would not vote to excuse him. when he gave such a seditious reason And 
when afterwards secession speeches were made, I had the honor as the fi?st 
member of this House, to struggle for the floor with my friend Genial Mc 
CWnd to denounce the doctrine of secession as alien to the Constitutioa 
bad m theory, and worse in practice. I picture now the scene wSook 
place here after General McGlernand and nlyself had concluded oifr speeches 
and whftathe present Post Master General of the confederate State, rWrR. 
GAN] denounced us as the tail of the abolition kite. Great God! that I should 
ever have lived to have had such a reproach even from a rebel [Laughter f 
We who have been striving to keep this war in its proper directio^ so al 
thereby to make ,t successful, if success can be had. and thf Union restored a 
all by coercion; we who have stood here from the first to sustain this GoJern 
ment and this Administration which we did not contribute to^ace n P<>^ver 
d« not deserve the contempt.ous reproaches cast upon us by in|.-ates upon the 
o her side. Copperheads, are we? Copperheads! I would not follow this 
piteable example o discourtesy by speaking of other sorts of heads. eitheT cab 
bage heads or blockheads [Laughter.] I would not hurl such ep thets acroL 
this chamber. It would be unparliamentary, and I forego the luxury of be?^ 



6 

out of order here, I know the gentlemen are dead heads, and that is the reason 
why — on the principle of " nisi bonum, ftil mortuiis, " — I speak of them with 
respect. [Laughter.] 

It has been laid down by the best ethical writers upon free government, that 
it is perfectly right and proper to encourage criticism upon the administration 
of pubiic affairs. "We were taught that, in the first English literature we read 
in our language. John Milton dedicated his grandest work, the "Areopigitica," to 
the defence offree speech and unlicensed printing. Even in the Corps Legislatif 
of Fran.ce now, the fullest debal e is allowed to the opponents of the reigning dy- 
nasty and its measures, even of war. The noblest use of free speech in this or any 
free country is to criticize closely the political conduct of our agents. Hence 
in England it became a part of the Constitution to have what is called a "con- 
stitutional opposftion. " There is always a party out of power to watch th* 
party in power. Why ? Because, as was remarked the other day, powcf 
tends to slide from the many to the few. It tends to aggrandize itself. It 
grows by what it feeds on. A healthy state of the body politic requires a party 
at all times, standing upon the fundamental law as the basis of its existence, 
and fearlessly vigilant against the encroachments of power. This is the present 
mission of tne Democracy. We assume now no further respctosibility. We 
have never failed to appeal to the Constitution as the guide of our conduct 
We who have opposed this and similar bills, have done so because we thought 
them infringements upon the Constitution. It is for this that gentlemen on 
the other side hurl at us epithets of " secession sympathizers," " disloyal men, " 
" Copperheads. " I am yet to learn that any member upon this side, has yet 
gone outside of the proper constitutional opposition to this Administration. 
You cannot point to a single act, or to a single vote, or to a single speech 
uttered by us, looking to any opposition to this Government. Our opposition 
is to the continued and persistent breaches of our Constitution. Every vote 
upon this side, and every speech, has been in favor of some mode, one mode 
by one, and another mode by another, of sustaining this Government to the 
end. 

No proposition for a separation of the Union has ever come from this side of 
the chamber. None, none. The onl}' proposition of that sort, as was remarked 
the other day by my friend from Indiana, [Mr. Holman,] emanated from a 
gentleman who has always acted with the other side, [Mr. Conway.] He tried 
the other day to explain his position. I have since read his resolution in order 
to get the benefit of his explanation. But as I read his resolution, it says, as re- 
ported in his printed speech, "that the Executive be, and he is hereby re- 
quested to issue a general order to all commanders of forces in the several mili- 
tary departments of the United States to discontinue offensive operations 
against the enemy, and to act for the future entirely en the defensive." 

"Resolved, That the Executive be, and he is further requested to enter Into nef^otiations 
with the authorities of the Confederate States, with reference to a cessation of hostilities, 
based on the following propositions : EecognitiuD of the independence of the Confederate 
States." 

What does that mean ? It was not offered by a Democrat. No Copperhead 
offered it What does it mean f Gentlemen upon this side of the chamber de- 
nounced that resolution. No man upon that side has yet risen to denounce it. 

Mr. BLAKR I want to say to the gentleman, that every gentleman upon 
this side of the House denounced it by their vote. 

Mr. COX. I know they voted against it. I wish they would confine their 
denunciations of the Democracy to their silent votes. 

Mr. BLAKE. That we are doing. 

Mr. COX- I do not mean to include my colleague among those, who have so 
off<:nsively denounced Democrats. But all who have spoken have denounced us 
although they know that we have again and again asserted that we are for 
the Union at all hazards, and by every means which will in our judgment se- 
cure its Integrity, We were for this Union by war when war seemed a neces- 
sity. We are for this Union by peace whenever peace is honorable and possi- 
ble. We are oppos«d to any war like that for the abolition of slavery, that 



■will make disunion eternal. We are opposed to any peace that will mutilate 
the Republic. That is the " Copperhead " policy, and I ask my friend from. 
Maine to pray over it to-night and see if he cannot think better of ua., 
[Laughter.] Mark the Democratic policy : No peace with the idea of dis- 
memberment; no war that is fatal to the Union; everything for the Union 
under the Constitution ; we will never break that instrument to bring back 
the Union, for when the Constitution is broken, there is no Union, but a unity 
of territory, a despotisSi of power. My honorable friend from Massachusetts,. 
[Mr. Thomas,] told you at the last session that you could not hold the sword, 
in one hand to defend the Constitution while in the other you held a hammeir 
to breaV it to pieces. 

Mr. Speaker, I desire now to discuss someiof the features of the bill before 
us. I will ba very brief; for they have been thoroughly dissected by members, 
upon this sidoof the House. I want to refer to only one or two propositions in that 
connection. I proposed two days since to amend the bill by inserting the word 
"white "in the first section. At that time the gentleman from New York, 
[Mr. Olin,] advised us that no amendments would be permitted at all 
and no discussion either. One good thing we have gained by this discussion at. 
least, apd that is that if this bill is to pass at all, it will pass in a less obnoxiousi 
shape. The leader of this House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stb-i 
VKNS,] in the speech he made a while ago proposed radical amendments. 

The SPEAKER pro tern. The gentleman will suspend his remarks while tile 
Clerk reads a clause from the Manual. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

" No person in speaking is to mention a member then present by his name, bnt to describe.' 
him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the other side of the question." 

Mr. VALL ANDIGHAM. It is always in ordei'^to name a member after hiv- 
ing described him. 

Mr. COX. No, I do not think it is perfectly in order. I differ with my col- , 
league. It has become a bad habit here and I have only followed the precedent 
set me by distinguished members. 

The SPEAKER pro tern. The gentleman will proceed in order. 

Mr. COX. I am very glad the Speaker mad« that point on me, for I shall 
take it more good naturedly than some others might have done. 

The SPEAKER jaro <em. [Mr. Dawes,] that is the reason why the point 
was made on the gentleman. 

Mr, COX. I mean then, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is Gbairmaa' 
of the Committee of Ways and Means; the gentleman who has such a chronic 
dislike to Democrats that he always lectures them at the end of his speeches; 
[Laughter ;] the gentleman who said he was sick of hearing this talk about 
the Constitution, who did not want the old Union restored. The speaker will 
now recognize whom I mean. [Laughter.] If I am not explicit enough, I will 
describe him as the gentleman who stated a great many apochryphal things, and 
among them that all the Democrats stayed at home to vote while the Republi- 
cans are the belligerant part of the people; the gentleman who undertook in 
his speech to night, to destroy the well-earned fame wf a general born in his 
own State, General McClellan — an undertaking that all' Pennsylvania, with all 
her iron, and all her tariffs, and all her Camerons, and all her robberies, can 
never accomplish. [Laughter.] Perhaps I am not yet explicit enough. The 
Chair will know who I mean when I refer to a speech made by a distinguished 
member from Massachusetts, now in the Chair, about composing political diffi- 
culties by the gentle amenities of horse contracts. 

Now, this i^entleman whom I have just described offered to amend this bill 
in several important particulars, and, among the rest, he proposed to strike oat 
the woids "iiuthoriztng provost marshals summarily to arrest for treasonable- 
practices." liumph! We have come to that! You are getting along pretty well 
for dead men. [Laughter.] Go on a day or two longer with this discussion, and 
you wiU drojp t^e bUl altogether, for vf hen ypi^ shall hav« blotted that out of th^ 



bill, yon will take the meanest sting out of it. If there be one tbiig that the 
people I represent fear aod despise most, it is, that these miserable inquisitors, 
created by this bill, these sneaking spies, these pliant servitors of powtr, called 
provost marshals, spooned off the scum of the Abolition party of the North, 
should have power to pry in and around the homes of quiet and loyal citizens 
to play the informer upo^ Democrats and Conservatives, drag them to the Bas- 
tiles of the Administration, not because they are disloyal, but because they 
happen to differ in opinion with their fellow-citizens about this war, its con- 
duct, and this Administration and its conduct. I congratulate you that you 
have saved many provost marshals from the rope. The chairman of the Mili- 
tary Committee, when we started this debate, said he would not allow any 
amendments, not even to effect this object. But you are not entitled to any 
credit for making this amendment. You have been forced by the cogent elo- 
quence of the debate upon this side of the chamber, to withdraw your " trea- 
sonable practices" from the bill. So much for debate. We have made a little 
by it at least; and now I hope that some one upon the other side, like the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, will progress a little further, and agree first to 
insert the word " white" in the first section of the bill, so that instead of read- 
ing "all able-bodied male citizens of the United States," it shall read "all able- 
bodied white male citizens of the United States." It is only a verbal amend- 
ment. [Laughter.] Suppose you consider it over night. We may all get 
together, after a little more debate, and agree to kill the bill entirely. 

There is another objection to this bill, which has been urged here, and which 
was most eloquently urged by my colleague, [Mr, White.] It is this: This 
bill breaks down not only the rights of the States, but the executive, legisla- 
tive, and judicial departments of the States. It infringes the letter and spirit 
of the Constitution. It seeks to take from the States certain rights over their 
own militia — a right never to be yielded by a free people without dishonor and 
danger. 

Hov/ is that objection met by gentlemen on that side? Not as it was met 
•in the other branch of Congress ; for there it was not pretended that this bill 
was not intended to call out the militia. Here, it is a bill for enrolling and 
calling out the national forces and for other purposes, as if you cou'd, by a 
dash of the pen, change the nature and purpose of this measure. When this 
bill was first reported in the Senate, all admitted that it was a bill to call out 
the militia; and its language, but not its scope or effect, is changed only for the 
purpose of avoiding the attacks that would be made upon it on account of 
its breaking down the rights of the States over the militia. 

Now there is an army of the United States, just as well known as the militia 
of the States. The former is subject to the command of the Chief Magistrate, 
and completely controlled by the rules and regulations made here ; the latter 
is not subject to the federal Government, until called into the service of the 
United States, in pursuance of the federal Constitution and laws. But gentle- 
men say that this is a bill for creating or increasing the regular army, and that 
there is no limit to our power.over that subject. Well, if this be true, and this 
bill is executed, there will be no militia left in the States after this regular army 
is constituted. You sweep out of being the whole militia of the States into the 
federal control. You leave the States unprotected, so far as the militia pro- 
tects them. This bill is, to all intents and purposes, a bill to call forth the 
militia of the States; but it does not make the call according to the Constitution 
and the law. The militia is to be called out, under this bill, directly by the Pres- 
ident or his subordinate federal agents acting upon the individual citizens. It 
never was the custom of the Government so to call them. They should be 
called through the intervention of the States, and in that way alone. I need 
not refer gentlemen to the articles of the Constitution on this subject, Th«y are 
familiar, I will read, however, the second section of the second article : 

"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States 
and of the militia of the several States when called Into the actual service of tha United 
States." 

Not while they are being enrolled, but "when called into the actual 
service of the United States," is the President the Commander of the mili- 
tia of the Stat«8. In my judgment, then, the federal Governtneut has no 



authority over the militia until it is called into the service of the iTnited ^t«s. 
By another section, the Conatitution of the United States authorizes Congy/B 



" To provide for calling forth tbe mlHtla to exeoute the laws of the Union, suppress insur- 
rection, and repel iDvaeions. 

" To provide for organlzlna. anning, and diselplining the militia, and for govemiiitg *nch 
part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." 

You may provide for their organization. You may provide for their ©irol- 
ment, which is a part of the organization. You may proyide for arming them. 
You may provide the mode and manner in which they shall be disciplined. 
But you cannot do th^t by your federal Executive. That is to be done by the 
States themselves. They are authorized to do it, and the Federal Govern- 
ment is excluded from that office. That is the opinion of the best commfenta- 
tor on the Constitution, Judge Story. I refer to vol. 3, sec. 1208: 

" The question, when th« authority of CJongrees over the militia becomes exeliisive, must 
eflsenlially depend upon the fact when they are to be deemed In the actual service of .the 
United Btates. There is a clear distinction between calling forth the militia and their being 
ta actual eerviee. They are not cotemporaneous acts, nor necegsarily identical in their eon- 
stitutional bearings. The President is not Commander-in-Chief of the militia, except when 
In actual service ; and not when they are merely ordered Into service. They are sublected 
to martial law only when in actual service, and not merely when called forth, before they 
have obeyed the call." 

One of the sections of this bill proposes to subject the men who may be 
drafted, to martial law, to deprive them of the legal right of being tried for 
criminal offences by a jury of their peers, before they are mustered into the 
service of the United States. Such a power is not conferred by the Constitu- 
tion. It will be resisted as a usurpation. In this connection I refer to Elliott's 
Debates, pages 287, 288 and 294, to show that Judge Story is justified in his 
construction, by the language of those who were contemporaneous with -the 
formation of the Constitution. 

It is unnecessary for me, Mr. Speaker, to comment on that commentator. 
Judge Story lays down the constitutional interpretation explicitly. If 
you intend to take these men as the militia of the country — and you mean 
Dothing else — you cannot do it except by the intervention of the States them- 
selves. There is another clause of the Constitution (article 2d of the amend- 
ments) which reserves to the States, for a vital purpose, the control of their 
own militia: 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right ttf ihe 
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infiringed." 

Let this Federal Government beware how it seeks a conflict about the clearly 
reserved rights of the States. The practice of arbitrary arrests, the past year 
and a half, is not calculated to make future arrests of citizens either pleasant 
or safe for the minions of federal power. 

Now, if the Constitution means anything, it means that in no emergency 
shall the States of this Union lose the power to control their own militia, for 
their own State purposes, except when it is merged in the actual service of the 
United States. By this bill you leave no power in the States to officer or direct 
their militia. The troops of Ohio may be mingled miscellaneously -with those 
from Maine. There is a wise reason why the militia should be considered and 
kept as an institution of the States. You will find that reason in the very 
genius and structure of the federal system. We cannot, in these times, too 
often recur to the early expounders of the Constitution. I hold to the JeSer- 
Bonian and Madisoniau construction of that instrument, with re.-pect to ihe 
rights of the States. Kowhere do I find the tenets of this school so correctly 
yet 80 familiarly expounded as in the Private Correspondence of Mr. Madison, 
published for private distribution by my friend J. C. McGuire, of this city, and 
to whom I am indebted for the volume before me. Mr. Madison (page 119) 
defines the relations implied by the terms, union, federal, national, and State, 
in a letter written in September, 1829, wherein he says: 

"That the Constitution of the United States was created by the people composing t^ie re- 
spective States, who alone hud the right ; that they organized the Govornment into legislative, 
executive, and judiciary departments, delegating thereto certain portions of power, to Ije 
exercised over the whole, and reserving the other portions to themselves respectively. As 
t hese distinol portions of power were to be exercised by the General Government and by the 



10 

state governments, by each within limited spheres ; and as, of conrse, controversies concern- 
ing the boundaries of their power would happen, it was provided that they should be decidod 
by the Supreme Court of the United States, so constituted as to be as impartial as it could b» 
made by the mode of appnintmam and responsibility for the judges. 

la there, then, no remedy lor uuurpatioas in wbi«h the Supreme Court of the United 
States eoncar 1 Tea, constitational remedies. * ♦ * ♦ * 

Bemonstraneies and instructions; recurring elections and impeachments; amendment of 
Coastltntlon, aa provided by itself, and exemplified in the 11th article limiting the suability 
of the States, 

"These are resources of the States against the General Government, resulting from fh* 
relations of the States to that Government, while no corresponding control exists in the 
general to the individual governments, all of whose fanctionaries are independent of tb« 
United States in their appomtment and responsibility. * ♦ * * 

"In al! the views that may be taken of questions between the State governments and the 
General Government, the awfnl consequences of a final rupture and dissolution of the Unio* 
should never for a moment be lost siglit of. Such a prospect must be deprecated, must he 
shuddered at by every friend to his country, to liberty, to the happiness of man. For, in th« 
event of a dissolution of the llHion. an impossibility of ever renewing it is brought home to 
every mind by tlie difficulties encountered in establishing it. The propensity of all commu- 
nities to divide, when not pressed into a unity by external, danger Is a trttth well under- 
stood. There is no Instance of a people, inhabit! ag even a small island, if remote from 
foreign danger, and sometimes In spite of thnt pressure, who are not divided into alien, rival, 
hostile tribes. .The happy Union of these States is a wonder; their Constitution a miracle; 
their example the hope of Liberty throughout the world. Wo to the ambition that woold 
meditate the destruction of either " 

I trust and pray that this House will not, by passing this bill, hazard tb« 
fearful consequences of a further disruption of the federal ties, by entrenching 
upon the rights of the States; that at least they will seek first as Mr. Madison 
suggests, the judiciary, as the arbiter of these mooted questions of power, before 
embarking this troubled people upon new seas of blood, amidst other and worse 
8tL>rms of conflicting passion. 

Not alone to Jefferson and Madison, or the Supreme Court, will I go for the 
rule of construction as to the Constitution. Even that great apostle of con- 
solidation, Hamilton, in order to secure the adoption of the Constitution by his 
own State of New York, presented this exposition of our Government: 

■"•If the State governments were to be abolished, the question would wear a different face; 
but this idea la inadmiRsible. They are absolutely necessary to the system. Their axistene* 
must form a leading principle in tlie most perfect Constitution we could form. I iasist that 
it can never be the rnterest or desire of the national legislature (much less the President) to 
destroy the State governments. It can derive no advantage from such a result; but, on th« 
contrary, would lose an indispensalil-e support, a necessary aid, in executing the laws and 
Convering the influence of Government to the doors of the people. The Union is dependent 
on the will of the State governments for its Chief Magistrate and its Senate. The blow aimed 
at the members nnist give a fatal wound to the head, and the destruction of the States must 
beat once'political suicide. Can the national Government be guilty of this m.idncgs? * * 

"•And again I have stated to the oorammittee abundant reasons to prove the entire safety 
of the Stivte goremmenti and of the people. I wish the committee to remember that tha 
Cdnslitutlon, under examination, is framed upon truly republican principles, and that, as it 
iserxpressiy designed to provide for the common protection and general welfare of the United 
States, it must be utterly repugnant to this Constitution to subvert the State goveromeHtt or 
opprert the people " 

This doctrine of State rights, Mr. Speaker, does not carry us into secession, 
for, according to the doctrine laid down by Jefferson, Madison, and others, 
there is a line drawn, bej'ond which State rights cannot go, but within which 
there is perfect immunity to the exercise of powers by the States in their sep- 
arate and sovereign capacity. If the State is aggrieved, it can neither nulliry 
or secede. Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Cartright, referred to in the "Private 
Correspondence," denied the right of any number of single States to arrest tba 
execution of a law of Congress, or secede from the Federal system. A conven- 
tion of the States, under the Constitution, he hailed "as the peaceable remedy 
for all the conflicting claims of power in our compound Government. " 

In the future complications to which this and similar bills will give rise, I 
can: See no other than the Madisonian remedy for our safety and regeneration! — ■ 

A Co.VVENTION OF THE StATKS UNDER THE CoNSTrrUTION. 

I. believe that this bill not only subverts the State governments, but thatti 
will suppress the people. Tt breaks down the barrier which the people erected 
agsipst consolidated power; for never in the history of this or any other Gov- 
ernment has anoh a etupeudous power been reposed in one man, as the power 
reposed by this bill in the President of the United States. It makes this 6o»- 
ermfiftnt, so guarded in its delegation of power, so full of reservations to tltf 



11 

8<)UPte of all power, th« people — tux irreepoDsible despotism, worse than tjw^'of 
I'rance and more tyrannical than that of liussia. You have already given to^is 
Administration the purse, you now throw the sword into the scale, and nothing 
is left to the people but abject submissioL or resistance. It becomes Congress 
to see to it before it entrusts such a power to any one man — first, whether it is 
Clonstitutional, and, if Constitutional, whether it is expedient to entrust it toihe 
present Chief Magistrate of the country. For my part, sir, 1 do not trust the 
present Chief Magistrate. I have my reasons for it. These reasons spring out 
of his conduct with regard to the slavery question. Again and again, beginning 
W}th his inaugural message, down to the last conference which he had with the 
Border-btate members of Congress, who now sit around me, he asseverated that 
he would iiu'i, interfere in any way with the Constitutional rights of the iStates 
Wilh regard :o ctgcj slavery. He said he hud oio rigiii, and no jnciiurtion 
thus to interfere ; and he kept his word for a brief time. But abolition pres- 
sure was brought to bear upon him. Abolitionists improved every oppor- 
tunity to poison his mind, and to salute his ear with tlieir flatteries, itiey 
made him believe that he was the saviour of the black race. In the very 
face of his own declarations to the contrary, and after he had promised solemnly 
to the Border-State Congressmen, in a public conference witii tliem, that he 
would do nothing to injure either the sensibilities or the interests of then- 
States with regard to slavery, he issued that proclamation which has been tio 
fatal to the army, fatal to "a united North," fatal to the Government, and will 
be, I fear, fatal to this Union, unless gentlemen on the other side come ^ip 
boldly and manfully and demand of him to repudiate it forever. Let them 
prepare him for the retraction by the repeal of their counscatiou measures us 
useless, impotent, and unconstitutional. Let the President then follow them 
and withd»aw his proclamation. Let us start anew. Go back to the Cm 
tenden resolutions, or if you cannot, by war. restore the federal authority, 
try some other mode. Withdraw the negro entirely trom your counsels, and 
conduct and make one grand etfort to preserve this Government of white 
men. Will you do it? If you would thus resolve to act, you would need 
no conscription to increase and inspirit jour army. "You would then invig- 
orate the public heart. You would restore again the public confidence 
There is your path. Will you follow it? I believe that yon will get no 
men under this bill. You will get no men through your depsicable and irre- 
sponsible provost marshals. This bill will only make trouble. 1 fear mure 
than 1 dare say. I fear you do not expect to get men under this bill. If the 
bill means anything in reason, it is a bill to enslave the people of the 
North, and not a bill to put down the rebellion. It gives you the power to 
annihilate the ballot box, destroy personal liberty, and scatter your spies 
and iulormers all over the country as thick as the locusts of Egypt. 1 pro- 
tect against it as a needless torture to the citizen, and as a cruel insult to 
the patriotism of a proud and free people. 

I wish 1 could see in this bill anything good. It will simply irritate the peo- 
ple of the iS'orth It will not bring about that harmony among the people 
which is indispensable to the success of an army against this rebellion. 

You have tried many expedients against our warning and failed. At first 
you had the whole JNorth, twenty millions of people, forgetting their divisions 
and sustaining the Government on the plain question for the restoration of the 
Constitution. You had victories on that policy. Your organs, like the Tri- 
bune, boasted, after the fail of Sumter, that — 

All party prejudices and passions were forgotten, and the new adniiuisiratiou, .-itrengtbcn- 
ed by an assurance of popular confidence, stood before the world the uuqaestioned repr«een- 
Uitive of tlie whole loyal people of the Union. 

Who and what has changed all that? Your President and his abolition ad- 
visers and policy. The Proclamation sounded : and lo I the Rebellion was to 
falL "The war would not last till Christmas," said the zealots of the liour 
"By a single blow the President has palsied the rebellion," said the Tribune 
Fatal delusionsj But will you learn nothings This bill will prove more im- 
potent against "the South and more miachievious in theiSortb than your'^^ro- 
oalmations an^ confiscations. 




12 

"0""013 703 697 6 

A good deal has been said about the Democre ^ . g, ^v-^ai 

Why, sir, we weat from this Hall at the close of the last session of Congresa 
and, found the President's call for volunteers among the people. We went 
before our constituents and asked for soldiers to fill the new regiments called 
for by the Governors in pursuance of that call. My colleague over the way 
[Mr, Harrison,] will bear me witness, with what zeal we endeavored to fill 
our quotas in order to save our respective counties from a draft In my own 
county at the capital of the State, we succeeded in raising the requisite num- 
ber aud there was no draft. My colleagues, [Mr. White, Mr. Moreis, Mr. Noble 
and others,] found it not hard by their appeals to fill the call in their localities 

This, however, was before the proclamation. When that masterpiece of f^lly 
and treachery was issued, farther enlistments became almost impossibly. We 
cottld then make no more speeches for recruits. Why f We had told the 
people that this was a war for the Union and for the Constitution. When it 
was thus perverted by base treachery and falsehood from this, its proper pur- 
pose, we took our appeal directly to the people, aud denounced the treachery 
and unveiled the falsehood of this Administration. The people understood and 
endor:<ed us. 1 might refer you to resolutions passed by the Democratic 
Oouventiou, of Ohio, wherein we said to the people that the Democracy were 
willing to join hand in hand with any citizen of the State to strengthen and 
invfjforate the Government and suppress the rebellion. They deprecated the 
divisions and distractions which the abolitionists were forcing upon the coun- 
try, as hostile to its best interests. 

Here the hammer fell. 



Towers, print 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




" 013 703 697 6 



